






o, ♦.TTT*. A 








rr.-' ^0 



^■^'^ 




v- . 









5^"-. 




vAo^ 







^oV 



'^0^ 




0" .»•!'♦ ";> 








v' 







\/ 




" •^ot.*' ,';^^<.* '-^^o^ °*^^'-. -^ov* 




A. 
••'■•• A^ ^;^ "oho" ^"?> 








<v "</. '.^ ^ 



v^^ 




^-a>9^' 












> V^ »1*°' cr Ap ^ 







^\ <i^ "^ • 

k> n If tt _ "-I 




;.*"« 



:. -n-o^ :■ 





o * , 



^^ 



MR; WEBSTER'S SPEECH 



MARSHFIELD, MASS. 



DELIVERED SEPTEMBER 1, 1848, 



SPEECH ON THE OREGON BILL, 



DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 



AUGUST 12, 1848. 



BOSTON : 

PRESS OF T. R, MARVIN, 24 CONGRESS STREET. 

1848. 



£45.0 



The following correspondence explains llie occasion of llie Meeting at Marshfield, at 
which Mr. Webster's Speech was delivered. 

Marshfield, Ms., Aug. 2, 1848. 
Hon. Daniel Webster : 

Dear Sir,— Tlie undersigned, Whigs and fellow citizens of yours, are desirous of seeing 
and conferring with ynu on the subject of our National Policy, and of hearing your opinions 
freely expressed thereon. We look anxiously on the present prospt-ct of public affairs, and 
on the position in which the Whig party, and especially Northern Whigs, are now placed. 
We should be grieved indeed to see Gen. Cass— so decided an opponent of all those measures 
which we think essential to the honor and interests of the country and the prosperity of all 
classes— elected to the Chief Magistracy. On the other hand, it is not to be concealed, thai 
there is much discontent with the nomination made by the late Philadelphia Convention, of 
a Southern man, a military man, fresh from bloody fields, and known only by his sword, as 
a Whig candidate for the Presidency. 

So far as is in our humble ability, we desire to preserve the Union and the Whig Party, 
and to perpeluate Whig principles ; but we wish to see also that these principles maybe 
preserved, and this Union perpetuated, in a manner consistent with the rights of the Free 
States, and the prevention of the farther extension of the Slave power; and we dread the 
effects of the precedent— which we think eminently dangerous, and as not exhibiting us in a 
favorable light to the Nations of the Earth- of elevating a mere military man to the Presi- 
dency 

We think a crisis is upon us ; and wc would gladly know how we may best discharge our 
duties as true Americans, honest men, and good Whigs. To you, who have been so long in 
public life, and are able from your great experience and unrivalled ability to give us infor- 
mation and advice, and upon whom, as neighbors and friends, we think we have some claims, 
we naturally look, and we should be exceedingly gratified if, in any way, public or private, 
you weuld express your opinion upon interesting public questions now pending, with that 
boldness and distinctness with which you are accustomed to declare your sentiments. If you 
can concur with our wishes, please signify to us in what manner it would be most agreeable 
lo you that they should be carried into effect. 

With very great regard, 

Your Obedient Servants, 

DANIEL PHILLIPS, 
GEORGE LEONARD, 
GEO. H. WETHERBEE, 

and many others. 



To this invitation Mr. Webster returned the following reply ; — 

Marshfield, Aug. 3, 1848. 

Gentlemen. — I have received your letter. The critical state of things at Washington 
obliges me to think it my duty to repair thither immediately and take my seat in the Senate, 
notwidisianding the state of my health and the heat of the weather render it disagreeable for 
me to leave home. 

I cannot, therefore, comply with your wishes at present ; but on my return, if such should 
continue to be your desire, I will meet you and the other Whigs of Marshfield, in an uncere- 
monious manner, that we may confer upon the topics to which your letter relates. 

1 am. Gentlemen, with esteem and friendship. 

Your obliged fellow citizen, 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 
To Messrs. Daniel Phillips, George Leonard, / 
Geo. H. Wetherbee, and others. \ 



Soon after Mr. Webster's return, it was arranged that the Meeting should take place at 
the " Winslow House," the ancient seat of the Winslow Family, now forming a part of 
Mr. Webster's farm,— on Friday, the first day of September. 

By Exchange 
New York Pub. Liby. 
MAR 2'^ 1934 



i 



SPEECH. 



Although it is not my purpose, during the recess of Congress, to address 
public assemblies on political subjects, I have felt it my duty to comply 
with your request, as neighbors and townsmen, and to meet you to-day; 
and I am not unwilling to avail myself of this occasion to signify to the 
people of the United States my opinions upon the present state of our public 
affairs. I shall perform that duty, certainly with great frankness, I hope 
with candor. It is not my intention to-day to endeavor to carry any point, 
to act as any man's advocate, to put up or put down any body. I wish, 
and I propose, to address you in the language and in the spirit of confer- 
ence and consultation. In the present extraordinary crisis of our public 
concerns, I desire to hold no man's conscience but my own. My own 
opinions I shall communicate, freely and fearlessly, with equal disregard 
to consequences, whether they respect myself or respect others. 

We are on the eve of a highly important Presidential election. In two 
or three months the people of this country will be called upon to elect an 
Executive Chief Magistrate of the United States ; and all see, and all feel, 
that great interests of the country are to be affected, for good or evil, by 
the results of that election. 

Of the interesting subjects over which the person who shall be elected 
must necessarily exercise more or less control, there are especially three, 
vitally connected, in my judgment, with the honor and happiness of the 
country. 

In the first place, the honor and happiness of the country imperatively 
require, that there shall be a chief magistrate elected who shall not plunge 
us into further wars of ambition and conquest. 

And in the second place, in my judgment, the interests of the country 
and the feeling of a vast majority of the People require that a President 
of these United States should be elected, who will neither use official 
influence to promote, nor who feels any desire in his heart to promote, the 
further extension of Slavery in this community, [Great cheering,'] or the 
further influence of it in the public councils. 

In the third place, if I have any just estimate, if an experience, (not now 
a short one,) in public affairs has enabled me to know any thing of what the 
public interest demands, in the next place I say, that the state of the 
country does require an essential reform in the system of revenue and 
finance, such as shall restore the prosperity, by promoting the industry 
and fostering the labor of the country, in its various branches. 

There are other things important. I will not allude to them. These 
three I hold to be essential. 

There are three candidates presented to the choice of the American 
people : 

General Taylor is the Whig candidate, standing upon the nomination 
of the Whig Convention. General Cass is the candidate of the opposing 
and now dominant party in the country; and a third candidate is presented 
in the person of Mr. Van B-uren, by a convention of citizens assembled at 



4 

Buffalo, whose object, or whose main object, as it appears to me, is con- 
tained in one of those considerations which I have mentioned ; and that 
is, the prevention of the further increase of slavery. An object in which 
you and I, gentlemen, so far as that goes, entirely concur with them, I am 
sure. 

Most of us who are here to-day are Whigs, National Whigs, Massachu- 
setts Whigs, Old Colony Whigs, and Marshfield Whigs, [Cheer:;] ; an<l if 
the Whig nomination made at Philadelphia were entirely satisfactory to the 
people of Massachusetts and to us, our path of duty would be plain. 

But the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency made by the Whitr 
Convention at Philadelphia, is not satisfactory to the Whigs of Massachu- 
setts ; that is certain : and it would be idle to attempt to conceal the fact. 
It is now more just and more patriotic, it is more manly and practical, to 
take facts as they are, and things as they are, and to deduce our own conr 
viction of duty from what exists before us. 

However respectable and distinguished in the line of his own^profession, 
or however estimable as a private citizen. Gen. Taylor is a military man, 
and a military man merely. He has had no training in civil affairs. He 
has performed no functions of a civil nature under ihe Constitution of his 
country. He has been known, and is known, only by his brilliant achieve- 
ments at the head of an army. 

Now the Whigs of Massachusetts, and I among them, are of opinion 
that it was not wise, nor discreet, to go to the army for the selection of a 
candidate for the Presidency of the United States. It is the first instance 
in our history in which any man of mere military character has been pro- 
posed for that high office. 

Gen. Washington was a great military character ; but by far a greater civil 
character. He had been employed in the councils of his country from the 
earliest dawn of the Revolution. He had been in the Continental Con- 
gress, he had established a great character for civil wisdom and judgment. 
After the war, as you know, he was elected a member of that Convention 
which formed the Constitution of the United States; and it is one of the 
most honorable tributes ever paid to him, that by that assembly of good 
and wise men he was selected to preside over their deliberations. And he 
put his name first and foremost, to the Constitution under which we live. 

President Harrison was bred a soldier, and at different periods of his 
life rendered important military services. But President Harrison, never- 
theless, was, for a much greater period of his life, employed in civil, than 
in military service. For twenty years he was either Governor of a Ter- 
ritory, member of one or the other House of Congress, or Minister abroad ; 
and discharged all these duties to the satisfaction of his country. 

This case, therefore, stands by itself; without a precedent or justification 
from any thing in our previous history. It is for this reason, as I imagine, 
that the Whigs of Massachusetts feel dissatisfied with this nomination. 
There may be others, there are others ; they are, perhaps, of less impor- 
tance and more easily to be answered. But this is a well-founded objec- 
tion ; and in my opinion it ought to have prevailed, and to have prevented 
this nomination. I know enough of history to see the dangerous tenden- 
cy of such resorts to military popularity. 

But, if I may borrow a mercantile expression, I may now venture to say, 
that there is another side to this account. The impartiality with which I 
propose to discharge my duty to-day, leads me to consider of that. And 
in the first place, it is to be considered, that Gen. Taylor has been nomi- 
nated by a Whig Convention, holden in conformity with the usages of the 



3 

Whig party, and fairly nominated, so far as I know. It is to be consid- 
ered, also, tliat he is the only Whig before the people, as a candidate for 
the Presidency; and no citizen of the country, with any effect, can vote 
for any other Whig, let his preferences be what they might or may. 

In the next place, it is proper to consider the personal character of Gen. 
Taylor, and his political opinions, relations and connections, so far as they 
are known. 

Now, gentlemen, in advancing to a few observations on this part of the 
case, I wish every body to understand that I have no personal acquaint- 
ance whatever with Gen. Taylor. I never saw him but once, and that but 
for a few moments in the Senate. The sources of information are 
open to you, as well as to me, from which I derive what I know of his 
character and opinions. But I have endeavored to obtain access to those 
sources. I have endeavored to inform and instruct myself by communica- 
tion with those who have known him in his profession as a soldier, in his 
associations as a man, in his conversations and opinions on political 
subjects; and I will tell you frankly what I think of him, according to the 
best lights which I have been able to obtain. 

I need not say, that he is a skillful, brave and gallant soldier. That is 
admitted by all. With me, all that goes but very little way to make out 
the proper qualifications for President of the United States. But wliat is 
more important, I believe that he is an entirely honest and upright man. 
I believe that he is modest, clear-headed, of independent and manly 
character, possessing a mind trained by proper discipline and self-control. 
I believe that h« is estimable and amiable in all the relations of private 
life. I believe that he possesses a reputation for equity and fair judg- 
ment, which gives him an influence over those under his command, 
beyond what is conferred by the authority of station. I believe that 
he is a man possessing the confidence and attachment of all who have 
been near him and know him. And I believe, that if elected President, 
he will do his best to relieve the country from present evils, and guard 
it against future dangers. So much for what 1 think of the personal 
character of Gen. Taylor. 

I will say, too, that so far as I have observed, his conduct since he has 
been a candidate for the office of President, has been irreproachable. I 
hear no intrigue imputed to him, no contumelious treatment of rivals. I 
do not find him making promises or holding out hopes to any men or any 
party. I do not find him putting forth any pretensions of his own, and 
therefore I think of him very much as he seems to think of himself, that he 
is an honest man, of an independent rnind and of upright intentions. 
And as to his qualifications for the Presidency, he has himself nothing 
to say about it. 

And now, friends and fellow townsmen, with respect to his political 
opinions and relations, I can say at once, that I believe him to be a 
Whig; I believe him to hold to the main doctrines of the Whig party. 
To think otherwise, would be to impute to him a degree of tergiversation 
and fraudulent deception, of which I suppose him to be entirely incapable. 

Gentlemen, it is worth our while to consider in what manner General 
Taylor has become a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. 

It would be a great mistake to suppose that he was made such merely 
by the nomination of the Philadelphia Convention ; for he had been nom- 
inated for the Presidency in a great many States, by various conventions 
and meetings of the people, a year before the Convention at Philadelphia 
assembled. 

1* 



6 

Gentlemen, the whole history of the world shows, whether in the most 
civilized or the most barbarous ages, tliat the affections and admiration 
of mankind are always easily carried away towards successful military 
achievements. The story of all Republics, and all free Governments show 
this. And we know in the case now before us, that so soon as brilliant suc- 
cess had attended Gen. Taylor's operations on the Rio Grande, at Palo 
Alto and other places, spontaneous nominations sprang up for him. 

And here let me say, that, generally, these were Whig nominations. 
Not universally, but generally, these nominations, made at various times 
before the assembly of the Philadelphia Convention, were Whig nomina- 
tions. General Taylor was esteemed, from the moment that his military 
achievements brought him into public notice, as a Whig General. 

You all remember that when we were discussing his merits in Congress, 
upon the question of giving thanks to the army under his command, and 
to himself, among other questions, the friends and supporters of Mr. Polk's 
administration denounced him as being, and because he was, a Whig Gen- 
eral. 

My friends near me, whom I am happy to see here, belonging to the 
House of Representatives, will remember that a leading man of the party 
of the Administration declared in his place in Congress, that the policy of 
the Administration connected with the Mexican war would never prosper, 
till the President recalled those Whig Generals, Scott and Taylor. The 
policy was a Democratic policy. The argument was, that the men to carry 
out this policy should be Democratic men. The officers to fight the bat- 
tles should be Democratic officers, and on that ground, the ordinary vote 
of thanks was refused to Gen. Taylor, on the part of the friends of the 
Administration. 

Let me remark, in the next place, that there was no particular purpose 
connected with the advancement of Slavery, entertained, generally, by 
those who nominated him. As I have said, they were Whig nominations, 
more in the Middle and Northern, than in the Southern States, and by 
persons who never entertained the slightest desire, by his nomination, or 
by any other means, to extend the area of slavery of the human race, or 
the influence of the slave-holding Slates in the Councils of the Nation. 

The Quaker city of Philadelphia nominaied Gen. Taylor ; the Whigs 
all over the Union nominated Inn), with no such view. A great conven- 
tion was assembled in New York, of highly influential and respectable 
gentlemen, very many of them well known to me, and they nominated 
Gen. Taylor with no such view. Gen. Taylor's nomination was hailed, 
not very extensively, but by some enthusiastic and not very far-seeing 
people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

There were, even among us, in our own State, Whigs quite early enough, 
certainly, in manifesting their confidence in this nomination ; a little too 
early, it may be, in uttering notes of exultation in our anticipated triumph. 
It would have been better if they had waited. 

Now the truth is, gentlemen, the truth is, and no man can avoid seeing 
it, unless, as sometimes happens, the object is too near our eyes to be dis- 
tinctly discerned, the truth is, that in these nominations, and also in the 
nomination at Philadelphia, in these Conventions, and also in the Conven- 
tion at Philadelphia, Gen. Taylor was nominated exactly for this reason : 
That, believing him to be a Whig, they thought he could be chosen more 
easily than any other Whig. This is the whole of it. That sagacious, 
wise, far-seeing doctrine of availability, lies at the bottom of the whole 
matter. [ Tremendous enthusiasm and applause.] 



So far, then, from imputing any motive to tliese Conventions over the 
country, or to the Convention in Philadelphia, as operating on a majority 
of the members to promote slavery by the nomination of Gen. Taylor, 1 do 
not believe a word of it,— not one word. I see that one part of what is 
called the platform of the Buffalo Convention, says that the candidates be- 
fore the public were nominated under the dictation of the slave power. 
I do not believe a word of it. [Applause.] 

In the first place, the Convention at Philadelphia was composed, in a 
very great majority, by members from the Free States. By a very great 
majority they might have nominated any body they chose. 

But the Free States did not choose to nominate a Free State man, or a 
Northern man ; even our neighbors, the States of New England, with the 
exception of New Hampshire and a part of Maine, neither proposed nor 
concurred in the nomination of any Northern man ; Vermont would hear 
nothing but the nomination of a Southern and slaveholding candidate; 
Connecticut was of the same mind, and so was Rhode Island ; the North 
made no demand, nor presented any request for a Northern candidate ; nor 
attempted any union among themselves for the purpose of promoting the 
nomination of such a candidate. 

They were content to take their choice among the candidates of the 
South. It is preposterous, therefore, to pretend that a candidate from the 
Slave States has been forced upon the North by Southern dictation. 

And in the next place, it is true that there were persons from New En- 
gland, most zealous and active, and who were most earnest in procuring 
the nomination of Gen. Taylor, and men who would cut off their right 
hands before they would do any thing to promote slavery in the United 
States. I do not admire their policy, indeed I have very little respect for 
it, understand that; but I acquit them of bad motives. I know the leading 
men in that Convention. I think I understand the motives that governed 
them. Their reasoning was this: "Gen. Taylor is a Whig; not eminent 
in civil life, not known in civil life, but still a man of sound Whig princi- 
ples. Circumstances have given him a reputation and eclat in the country. 
If he shall be the Whig candidate, he will be chosen ; and with him, there 
will come into the two Houses of Congress an augmentation of Whig 
strength. The Whig majority in the House of Representatives will be 
increased. The Loco Foco majority in the Senate will be diminished. 
That was the view, and such was the motive, however wise or houe\er 
unwise, that governed a very large majority of those who composed the 
Convention at Philadelphia. 

Now, gentlemen, in my opinion this was a wholly unwise policy ; it was 
short-sighted and temporising on questions of great principles. But I 
acquit those who adopted it of any such motives as have been ascribed to 
them, and especially what has been ascribed to them in a part of this Buf- 
falo Platform. 

Such, gentlemen, are the circumstances connected with the nomination 
of Gen. Taylor. I only repeat, that those who had the most agency 
originally in bringing him before the people, were Whig Conventions, and 
Whig meetings in the several States, Free States, and, that a great major- 
ity of that Convention which nominated him in Philadelphia were from the 
Free States and might have rejected him if they had chosen, and selected 
any body else on whotu they could have united. 

This is the case, gentlemen, as far as I can discern it, and exercising 
upon it as impartial a judgment as I can form, this is the case presented to 



8 

ihe Whigs, so far as respects the personal fitness and personal character of 
Gen. Taylor, and the circumstances which have caused his nomination. 

Now, fellow citizens, if we were weighing the propriety of nominating 
such a person to the Presidency, it would be one thing ; if we are consid- 
ering the expediency, or I may say the necessity, (which to some minds 
may seem to be the case,) of well meaning and patriotic Whigs supporting 
him after he is nominated, that is quite another thing. And that leads to 
the consideration of what the Whigs of Massachusetts are to do, or such 
of them as do not see fit to support Gen. Taylor. Of course they must vote 
for Gen. Cass; or they must vote for Mr. Van Buren; or they must omit 
to vote at all. 

I agree that there are cases in which, if we do not know in what direc- 
tion to move, we ought to stand still till we do. I admit that there are 
cases in which, if one does not know what to do, he had better not do 
he knows not what. But on a question so important to ourselves and the 
country ; on a question of a popular election under Constitutional forms in 
which it is impossible that every man's private judgment can prevail, or 
every man's private choice succeed, it becomes a question of conscientious 
duty and patriotism, what it is best to do upon the whole. And that leads 
to the considerations which should influence Whigs, in my opinion, upon 
the question now before us. 

Under the practical administration of the Constitution of the United 
States, there cannot be a great range of personal choice in regard to the 
candidate for the Presidency. In order that their votes may be effective, 
men must give them for some one of those who are prominently before 
the public. This is the necessary result of our forms of government, and 
from the provisions of the Constitution And it does, therefore, bring men 
sometimes to the necessity of choosing between candidates, neither of 
whom would be their original, personal choice. 

Now, what is the contingency? What is the alternative presented to the 
Whigs of Massachusetts ? In my judgment, fellow citizens, it is merely 
one : the question is between Gen. Taylor and Gen. Cass. And that is 
the only question. [Great sensation.] 

I am no more skilled to foresee political occurrences than others. I judge 
only for myself But, in my opinion, there is not the least probability of any 
other result than the choice of Gen. Taylor or Gen. Cass. 

I know that the enthusiasm of a new-formed party, that the popularity 
of a new-formed name, without communicating any new-formed idea, 
[Ent/msiasni] may lead men to think that the sky is to fall, and that larks 
are suddenly to be taken. I entertain no such expectations. I speak 
without disrespect of the Free Soil Party. I have read their platform, and 
though I think there are some unsound places in it, I can stand on it 
pretty well. But I see nothing in it both new and valuable. What is 
valuable is not new, and what is new is not valuable. 

If the term of Free Soil party, or Free Soil men, designate those who are 
fixed, and unalterably fixed, in favor of the restriction of slavery, are so to 
day and were so yesterday, and have been so for some time, [Lm/gh(er] 
then I hold myself to be as good a Free Soil man as any of the Buffalo 
Convention. \3Iuch clapping.] I pray to know who is to put beneath my 
feet a freer soil than that upon which I have stood ever since I have been 
in public life? I pray to know who is to make my lips freer than they 
always have been, or to inspire into my breast a more resolute and fixed 
determination to resist the advances and encroachments of the slave power 



9 

than has inhabited it since I, for the first time, opened my mouth in the 
councils of the country? [Great excitement.] 

The gentlemen at Buffiilo have placed at the head of their party, Mr, 
Van Buren, a gentleman for whom I have all the respect that I should 
entertain for one with whom I have been associated, in some degree, in 
public life for many years, and who has held the highest offices in the 
country. But really, speaking for myself, if I were to express confidence 
in Mr. Van Buren and his politics on any question, and most especially 
this very question of slavery, I think the scene would border upon the 
ludicrous, if not upon the contemptible. 

I never proposed anything in my life, of a general and public nature, that 
Mr. Van Buren did not oppose. Nor has it happened to me to support 
any important measure that he did propose. And if he and I now were to 
find ourselves together under the Free Soil flag, I am sure, that with his 
accustomed good nature, he would laugh. [Laughter.] If nobody were 
present, we should both laugh [increased laughter from the audience] at the 
strange occurrences and stranger jumbles of political life, that should have 
brought him and me to sit down cosily and snugly, side by side, on the 
same platform. That the leader of the Free Spoil party should so sud- 
denly have become the leader of the Free Soil party, would be a joke to 
shake his sides and mine. 

Gentlemen, my first acquaintance in public life with Mr. Van Buren was 
when he was pressing with great power, the election of Mr. Crawford to 
the Presidency, against Mr. Adams. Mr. Crawford was not elected, and 
Mr. Adams was. Mr. Van Buren was in the Senate nearly the whole 
of that Administration ; and during the remainder of it, he was Governor 
of the Stale of New York. And it is notorious, that he was the soul and 
centre, throughout the whole of Mr. Adams's term, of the opposition made 
to him. And he did more to prevent Mr. Adams's election in 1S2S, and to 
obtain Gen. Jackson's election, than any other man, yes, than any ten 
other men. 

Gen. Jackson was chosen. Mr. Van Buren was appointed his Secretary 
of State. It so happened that in July, 1829, Mr. McLane went to Enwlaud 
to arrange the controverted, difficult and disputed point on the subject of 
the colonial trade, Mr. Adams had held a high tone on that subject. He 
had demanded, as a reciprocity and a right, the introduction of our pro- 
ducts into all parts of the British territory, freely, in our own vessels, 
since Great Britain was allowed to bring her produce into the United 
States upon the same terms. Mr. Adams placed this upon terms of re- 
ciprocity and justice. Great Britain would not yield. Mr. Van Buren, in 
his instructions to Mr. Mci.ane, told him to yield that question of right, 
and then went on to say, that the administration in which he was Secre- 
tary of State, that is Gen. Jackson's, ought not to be debarred in England 
by the English government from the enjoyment of that which he was 
willing to call not a right, but a boon, or a privilege. Gen, Jackson's 
administration, he said, ought not to be refused that, on account of the 
misbehavior of Mr. Adams's administration. That is the sum and sub- 
stance of the instruction. 

Well, gentlemen, it was one of the most painful duties of my life, on 
account of this, to refuse my assent to Mr. Van Buren's nomination. It 
was novel in our history, when an administration changes, for the new 
administration to seek to obtain privileges on the assertion that they 
have abandoned the ground of their predecessors. I suppose that such a 
course is holden to be altogether undignified, by all public men. When I 



10 

went into the Department of State under General Harrison, I found in 
the conduct of my predecessor many things that I could have wished had 
been otherwise. Did I retract a jot or tittle of what Mr. Forsyth had said? 
I took the case as he had left it, and conducted it upon the principles 
which he left. And I should have considered that I disgraced myself, 
if I had said, " Pray, my Lord Ashburton, we are more rational persons 
than our predecessors, we are more considerate than they, and intend to 
adopt an entirely opposite policy. Consider, my dear Lord, how much 
more friendly, reasonable, and amiable we the successors are, than our 
predecessors." 

But now, on this very subject of the extension of the slave power, I 
would by no means do the least injustice to Mr. Van Buren. If he has 
come up to some of the opinions expressed in the platform of the Buffalo 
Convention, I am very glad of it. I do not mean to say that there may 
not be very good reason.^ for those of his own party who cannot con- 
scientiously vote for General Cass, to vote for him, because I think him 
much the least dangerous of the two. 

But in truth, looking at Mr. Van Buren's conduct as President of the 
United States, I am amazed to find that he should be placed at the head 
of a party professing to be, beyond all other parties, friends of liberty 
and enemies of African slavery in the Southern States. Why, the very 
first thing that Mr. Van Buren did after he was President, was to declare 
that if Congress interfered with slavery in the District of Columbia he 
would apply the Veto to their Bills. 

Mr. Van Buren in his Inaugural, quoting from his letter accepting his 
nomination, says that he therein declared that " 1 must go into the 
Presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of every 
attempt on the part of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Co- 
lumbia, against the wishes of the slaveholding States; and also with a 
determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with it in 
the States where it exists." He then proceeds, "I submitted also to my 
fellow citizens, with fulness and frankness, the reasons which led me 
to this determination. The result authorizes me to believe that they have 
been approved and are confided in, by a majority of the people of the 
United States, including those whom they most immediately affect. It 
now only remains to add, that no bill conflicting with these views can ever 
receive my constitutional sanction." 

In the next place, we know that Mr. Van Buren's casting vote was 
given for a law of very doubtful propriety, a law to allow Postmasters to 
open the mails and see if there was any incendiary matter in them, and 
if so, to destroy it. I do not say that there was no constitutional power to 
pass such a law. Perhaps the Southern statesmen thought it was necessary 
to protect themselves from insurrections. So far as any thing endangers 
the lives and property of the South, so far I agree that there may be such 
legislation in Congress as shall prevent such results. 

But, gentlemen, no man has exercised a more controling influence on 
the conduct of his friends, in this country, than Mr. Van Buren. 1 take 
it, that the most important event in our time, tending to the extension 
of slavery and its everlasting establishment on this continent, was the 
annexation of Texas, in 1844. Where was Mr. Van Buren then? Let 
me ask, — three or four years ago, where was he then? 

Every friend of Mr. Van Buren, so far as I know, supported the 
measure. The two Senators from New York supported it, and the 
members of the House of Representatives from New York supported it, 
and nobody resisted but Whigs. 



11 

And I say in the face of the world, I say in the face of those connected 
with, or likely to be benefited by, the Buffalo convention, I say to all of 
thera, that there has been no party of men in this country, which has 
firmly and sternly resisted the progress of the Slave Power but the Whigs. 

Why, look to this very question of the annexation of Texas. We talk 
of the dictation of the Slave Power ! At least they do, I do not. I do 
not allow that any body dictates to me. They talk of the triumph of the 
South over the North ! There is not a word of truth or reason in the 
whole of it. I am bound to say, on my conscience, that of all the evils 
inflicted upon us by these acquisitions of slave territory, the North has 
borne its full part in the infliction. Northern votes, in full proportion, 
have been given in both Houses, for the extension of territory, and for the 
extension of slave territory. 

We talk of the North. There has been no North. I think the North 
Star is at last discovered ; 1 think there will be a North ; but up to the 
recent session of Congress there has been no North. What [ mean to 
say is, I am to understand a geographical section of the country, in 
which there has been found a strong, conscientious, and united opposi- 
tion to Slavery, no such North has existed. 

Pope says, you know, 

"Ask ' Where's the North?' At York, 'tis on the Tweed; 
In Scotland, at tlie Orcades; and there. 
At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where." 

Now, if there has heretofore been such a North as I have described, a 
North, strong in opinion and united in action against Slavery, if such 
a North has existed any where, it has existed ' the Lord knows where,' I 
do not. Why, on this very question of the admission of Texas, it may 
be said with truth, that the North let in Texas. The Whigs, North and 
South, resisted Texas. Ten Senators from slave holding States, of the 
Whig party, resisted Texas. Two only, as I remember, voted for it. 
But the Southern Whig votes against Texas were overpowered by the 
Democratic votes from the free States, and from New England among 
the rest Yes, if there had not been votes from New England in favor of 
Texas, Texas would have been out to this day. Yes, if men from New 
England had been true, Texas would have been nothing but Texas still. 

There were four votes in the Senate from New England in favgr of the 
admission of Texas, Mr. Van Buren's friends. Democratic members: one 
from Maine ; two from New Hampshire ; one from Connecticut. Two 
of these gentlemen were confidential friends of Mr. Van Buren, and had 
both been members of his Cabinet. They voted for Texas ; and they let 
in Texas, against Southern Whigs and Northern Whigs, That is the 
truth of it, my friends. Mr. Van Buren, by the wave of his hand, could 
have kept out Texas. A word, a letter, though it had been even shorter 
than Gen. Cass's letter to the Chicago Convention, would have been 
enough, and would have done the work. But he was silent. 

When Northern members of Congress voted, in 1818, for the Missouri 
Compromise, against the known will of their constituents, they were 
called *' Dough Faces." I am afraid, fellow citizens, that the generation 
of " dough faces " will be as perpetual as the generation of men. 

In 1844, as we all know, Mr. Van Buren was a candidate for the Presi- 
dency, on the part of the Democratic party, but lost the nomination at 
Baltimore. And we now learn from a letter from General Jackson to Mr. 
Butler, that Mr. Van Buren's claims were superseded because, after all, 



12 

the South thought that the accomplishment of the annexation of Texas 
might be more safely intrusted to Southern hands. We all know that the 
INorthern portion of the Democratic party were friendly to Mr. Van Buren 
Our neighbors from New Elampshire, and Maine, and elsewhere, were Van 
Buren men. But the moment it was ascertained that Mr Polk was the 
favorite of the South, and the favorite of the South upon the ground that I 
have mentioned, as a man more certain to bring about the annexation of 
Texas than Mr. Van Buren, these friends of Mr. Van Buren in the North 
ai ' caved in ;" not a man of them stood. Mr. Van Buren himself wrote 
a letter very complimentary to Mr. Polk and Mr. Dallas, and found no fault 
with the nomination. 

Now, gentlemen, if they were " dough faces " who voted for the Mis- 
souri Compromise, what epithet shall describe these men, here in our New 
England, who were so ready, not only to change or abandon him whom 
they inost cordially wished to support, but did so in order to make more 
sure the annexation of Texas. 

They nominated Mr. Polk at the request of gentlemen of the South, and 
voted for him, through thick and thin, till the work was accomplished, and 
Mr. Polk elected. ^ ' 

For my part, I think that " dough faces" is an epithet not sufficiently 
reproachful. Now, I think, such persons are dough fnces, with dough 
heads and dough hearts, and dough souls; [Shouts of laughter] that they 
are «// dough ; that the coarsest potter may mould them to vessels of honor 
or dishonor,— most readily to vessels of r/Z^hoiior. 

Now, what do we see! Repentance has gone far. There are amona 
these very people, these very gentlemen, persons who espouse, with greal 
zeal the interests of the Free Soil party. I hope their repentance is as 
sincere as it appears to be. I hope it is honest conviction, and not merely 
a new chance for power, under a new name and a new party. But with 
all their pretensions, and with all their patriotism, I see dough still sticking 
on some of their cheeks. And therefore I have no confidence, not a par- 
tide. I do not mean to say, that the great mass of the people, especially 
those who went to that Convention from this State, have not the highest 
and purest motives. I think they act unwisely, but I acquit them of dis- 
honest intentions. But with respect to others, and those who have been 
part and parcel, those who have brought slavery into this Union I distrust 
them all. If they repent, let them, before we trust them, do works worthy 
of repentance. •' 

I have said, gentlemen, that in my opinion, if it were desirable to place 
Mr. Van Buren at the head of Government, there is no chance for him 
Others are as good judges as I am. But I am not able to say that I see 
any State in the Union in which there is a reasonable probability that he 
will get the vote. There may be. Others are more versed in such statistics 
than [ am. But I see none, and therefore I think that the issue is reduced 
exactly to be between Gen. Cass and Gen. Taylor. 

You may remember, that in the discussions of 1844, when Mr. Birney 
was drawing off votes from the Whig candidate, I said that every vote 
for Mr. Birney was half a vote for Mr. Polk. Is it not true that the 
Liberty vote abstracted from Mr. Clay's vote in the State of New York 
made Mr. Polk President ? That is as clear as any historical fact. And 
in my judgment, it will be so now. I consider every Whig vote given 
to Mr. Van Buren, directly aiding the election of Mr. Cass. Mark, I say, 
Whig vote. Now there may be States in which Mr. Van Buren may 
draw from the other side largely. But I speak of Whig votes, in this 



State and in any State. And I am of opinion that any such vote given 
to Mr. Van Buren, inures for Gen. Cass. 

Now as to Gen. Cass, gentlemen. We need not go to the Baltimore 
platform to instruct ourselves as to what his politics are, or how he will 
conduct the Government. Gen. Cass will go into the Government, if at 
all, by the same party that elected Mr. Polk; and he will " follow in the 
footsteps of his illustrious predecessor." [Laughter.'^ I hold him, I con- 
fess, in the present state of the country, to be the most dangerous man in 
whom the powers of the executive Chief Magistracy could well be placed. 
He would consider himself not as conservative, not as protective to pre- 
sent institutions, but as belonging to the party of the Progress. He 
believes in the doctrine of American destiny ; and that that destiny is to go 
through wars, and invasions, and maintain vast armies, to establish a 
great, powerful, domineering government over all this continent. We 
know that if Mr. Cass could have prevented it, the treaty with England in 
1842 would not have been made; we know that if Mr. Cass could have 
prevented it, the settlement of the Oregon question would not have been 
accomplished in 1846. 

We know that Gen. Cass could have prevented the Mexican war ; and 
we know that he was first and foremost in pressing that war. We know 
that he is a man of talent, of ability, of some celebrity as a statesman, in 
every way superior to his predecessor, if he should be the successor of Mr. 
Polk. But I think him a man of rash politics, pushed on by a rash party, 
and committed to a course of policy, as I believe, not in consistency with 
the happiness and security of the country. Therefore it is for you, and 
for me, and for all of us, Whigs, to consider, whether in this state of the 
case we can, or cannot, we will, or will not, give our votes for the Whig 
nomination. I leave that to every man's conscience. I have endeavored 
to state the case as it presents itself to me. 

Gentlemen, before Gen. Taylor's nomination, I stated always, when the 
subject was mentioned by my friends, that I did not and could not recom- 
mend the nomination of a military man to the people of the United States, 
for the office of President. It was against my conviction of what was 
due to the best interests of the country, and to the character of the repub- 
lic. I stated always, at the same time, that if Gen. Taylor should be 
nominated by the Whig convention, fairly, I should not oppose his elec- 
tion. I stand now upon the same declaration. 

Gen. Taylor has been nominated fairly, as far as I know, and I cannot, 
therefore, and shall not, oppose his election. At the same time, there 
is no man who is more firmly of opinion that such a nomination was not 
fit to be made. But the declaration, that I would not oppose Gen. Taylor, 
if nominated by the Whig party, was of course, subject, in the nature of 
things, to some exceptions. If I believed him to be a man who would 
plunge the country into further wars for any purpose of ambition or 
conquest, I would oppose him, let him be nominated by whom he might. 
If I believed that he was a man who would exert his official influence for 
the further extension of the slave power, I would oppose him, let him be 
nominated by whom he might. But I do not believe either. [Applr/nse.] 

I believe that he has been, from the first, opposed to the policy of the 
Mexican war, as improper, impolitic and inexpedient. I believe from the 
best information 1 can obtain, and you will take this as my opinion, 
gentlemen, I believe, from the best information I can obtain, that he has 
no disposition to go to war, or to increase the limits of slavery to form 
new States. 

2 



14 

Gentlemen, so much for what may be considered as belonging to the 
Presidency as a national question. But, the case by no means stops here. 
We are citizens of Massachusetts. We are Whigs of Massachusetts. 
We have supported the present government of the State for years, with 
success; and 1 have thought that most Whigs were satisfied with the ad- 
ministration of the State government in the hands of those who have had 
it. But now it is proposed, I presume, on the basis of the Buffalo platform, 
to carry this into the State elections, as well as into the national elections! 
There is to be a nomination of a candidate for Governor, against Mr. 
Briggs, or whoever may be nominated by the Whigs; and there is to be 
a nomination of a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, against Mr. Reed, 
or whoever may be nominated by the Whigs ; and there are to be nomi^ 
nations against the present members of Congress. Now, what is the 
utility or the necessity of this? We have ten members in the Con- 
gress of the United States. I know not ten men of any party who are 
more zealous, and firm, and inflexible in their opposition against slavery 
in any form. * 

And what will be the result? Suppose that a considerable number of 
Whigs secede from the Whig party and support a candidate of this new 
party, what will be the result? Do we not know what has been the case 
in tins State? Do not we know that this District has been unrepre- 
sented from month to month, and from year to year, because there has 
been an opposition to as good an anti-slavery man as breathes the air of 
this District? On this occasion, and even in his own presence, I may 
allude to our Representative, Mr. Hale. Do we want a man to give a 
better vote in Congress than Mr. Hale gives? Why, I undertake to say 
that there is not one of the Liberty party, nor will there be one of this 
new party, who will have the least objection to Mr. Hale, except that he 
was not nominated by themselves 'l"en to one, if the Whigs had not 
nominated him, they would have nominated him themselvest doubtless 
they would, if he had come into their organization, and called himself a 
third party man. 

Now, gentlemen, I remember it to have occurred, that on very important 
questions in Congress, the vote was lost for want of two or three mem- 
bers which Massachusetts might have sent, but which, in consequence 
of the division of parties, she did not send. And now I foresee that if in 
this District any considerable number of Whigs think it their duty to join 
in the support of Mr. Van Buren, and in the support of gentlemen whom 
that party may nominate for Congress, I foresee the same thing will take 
place, and we shall be without a Representative, in all probability, in the 
first session of the next Congress, when the battle is to be fought on this 
very slavery question. And the same is likely to happen in other Districts. 
I am sure that honest, intelligent and patriotic Whigs, will lay this con- 
sideration to their consciences, and judge of it as tliey think they ouo-ht 
to do. ° 

Gentlemen, I will detain you but a moment longer. You know that 
I gave my vote in Congress against the treaty of peace'"'with Mexico because 
it contained these cessions of territorv, and brought under the authority of 
the United States, with a pledge of future admission into the Union, the 
great, vast, and almost unknown countries of New Mexico and California. 

In the session before the last, one of the Southern Whig Senators, Mr. 
Berrien of Georgia, had moved a resolution, to the effect that the war 
ought not to be continued for the purposes of conquest and acquisition. 
The Resolution declared that the war with Mexico ought not to be prose- 



m 

cuted by this Government with any view to the dismemberment of that 
Republic, or to the acquisition, by conquest, of any portion of her territory. 
That proposition he introduced in the form of a resolution into Congress; 
and I believe that every Whig in the Senate, but one, voted for it. But 
the Senators belonging to the Loco Foco or Democratic party voted 
against it. The Senators from New York voted against it. Gen. Cass, 
from the free State of Michigan; Mr. Fairfield, from Maine; Mr. Niles, 
from Connecticut ; and others, voted against it, and the vote was lost. 
That is, these gentlemen, some of them very prominent friends of Mr. Van 
Buren, and ready to take the field for him, these very gentlemen voted not 
to exclude territory, that might be obtained by conquest. They were wil- 
ling to bring in the territory and then have a squabble and controversy, 
whether it should be slave or free territory. I was of opinion that the 
true and safe policy was, to shut out the whole question by getting no terri- 
tory, and thereby keep off all controversy. The territory will do us no 
good, if free; it will be an incumbrance, if free. To a great extent it will 
produce a preponderance in favor of the South in the Senate, even if 
it be free. Let us keep it out therefore. But no. We will make the 
acquisition, bring in the territory, and manage it afterwards. That was 
the policy. 

Gentlemen, in an important crisis, in English history, in the reign of 
Charles 2d, when the country was threatened by the accession to the 
throne of a Prince, then called the Duke of York, who was a bigot to the 
Roman Catholic religion, a proposition was made to exclude him from the 
crown. Some said that was a very rash measure, brought forward by 
very rash men, that they had better admit him, and then put limitations 
upon him, chain him down, restrict him. When the debate was going 
on, a gentleman is reported to have risen and expressed his sentiments 
by rather a grotesque comparison, but one of considerable force. 

" I hear a lion, in the lobby, roar! 
Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door, 
And keep him out ; or shall we let him in, 
And see if we can get him out again?" 

I was for shutting the door and keeping the lion out. Other more con- 
fident spirits, who are of the character of Wombwell, were for letting him 
in, and disturbing all the interests of the country. And when this Mexi- 
can treaty came before the Senate, it had certain clauses ceding New 
Mexico and California to the United States. A Southern gentleman, Mr. 
Badger, of North Carolina, moved to strike out those clauses Now you 
understand, that if a motion to strike out a clause be supported by one- 
third, it will be struck out, that is, two-thirds of the Senate must vote for 
each clause, in order to have it retained. The vote on this question of 
striking out stood 38 to 14 ; not quite one-third being against the cession, 
and so the clause was retained. 

And why were there not one-third ? Just because there were four New 
England Senators voting for these new territories. That is the reason. 

I hope I am as ardent an advocate for peace as any inan living; but I 
would not be carried away by the desire for peace to commit an act which 
I believed highly injurious, likely to have consequences of a permanent 
character, and indeed to endanger the existence of the Government. 
Besides, I believed that we could have struck out the cessions of territory, 
and had peace just as soon. And I would be willing to go before the 
people and leave it to them to say, whether they would carry on the war 



16 

any longer for acquisition of territory. If they would, then they were 
the artificers of their own fortunes. I was not afraid of the people on that 
subject. But if it had continued the war some time longer, I would have 
preferred that the war should continue some time longer, rather than that 
those territories lying on our southern border, should come in hereafter 
as new States. I should speak, perhaps, with more confidence, if some 
Whigs of the North had not voted for the treaty. My own opinion was then 
clear and decisive. I thought the case a perfectly plain one, and no man 
has yet stated a reason to convince me to the contrary. 

I voted to strike out the articles of cession. They would have been struck 
out if four of the New England Senators had voted it. I then voted against 
the ratification of the treaty, and that treaty would have failed if three 
New England Senators had voted as I did, and Whig Senators too. I 
should do the same thing again, and with much more resolution. I would 
have ran a still greater risk, I would have endured a still greater shock, 
before I would have risked any thing, rather than have been a participator 
in any thin^ which should have a tendency to annex southern territory to 
the States of the Union. J hope it will be remembered, in all future time, 
that on this question of the accession of these new territories of almost 
boundless extent, I voted against them, and against the treaty which con- 
tained them, notwithstanding all inducements to the contrary, and all the 
cries, which I thought hasty and injudicious, of " Peace! peace, on any 
terms." I will add, that those who voted against the treaty were gentle- 
men from so many parts of the country, that its rejection would have been 
rather a national, than a local resistance to it. There were votes against 
it from both parties, and from all parties, the South and the West, the 
North and the East. What we wanted was a few more New England 
votes. 

Gentlemen, after I had the honor of receiving the invitation to meet ray 
fellow citizens, I found it necessary in the discharge of my duty, though 
with great inconvenience to my health, to be present at the closing scenes 
of the session. You know what there transpired. You know the important 
decision that was made in both houses of Congress, in regard to Oregon. 
The immediate question respected Oregon, or rather the bill respected 
Oregon, but the question more particularly these new territories. 

The effect of the bill as passed in the Senate was to establish these new 
territories as slaveholding States. The House disagreed. The Senate 
receded from their ground, and the bill passed, establishing Oregon as a 
free territory, and making no provision for the newly acquired territories 
on the South. 

Now, gentlemen, my vote and the reasons I gave for it are known to the 
good people of Massachusetts, and I have not heard that they have ex- 
pressed any particular disapprobation of them. [Appl'iusc] 

But this question is to be resumed the first session of the next Congress, 
I think not in this Congress, I think at least there is no probability that it 
will be settled at the next session of this Congress; but the first session 
of the next Congress, this question will be resumed. It will enter at this 
very period into all the elections of the South. 

And now I venture to say, gentlemen, two things : the first well known 
to you, that General Cass is in favor of what is called the Compromise 
Line; and is of opinion that the Wilmot Proviso, or the Ordinance of 
1787, which excludes slavery from territories, ought not to be applied to 
territories lying south of 36 deg. 30 min. He announced this before he 
was nominated, and if he had not announced it, he would have been 



17 

thirty-six degrees thirty minutes farther off from being nominated. In the 
next place, he will do all he can to establish that compromise line ; and 
lastly, which is a matter of opinion, in my conscientious belief, he will 
establish it. 

Give him the power and the patronage of the government, let him exer- 
cise it over certain portions of the country whose representatives voted on 
this occasion to put off that question for future consideration, to settle it 
that Oregon shall be free, and leave New Mexico and California to be 
decided hereafter ; let him have the power of this government with his 
attachments, with his inducements, and we shall see the result. I verily 
believe that unless there is a renewed strength, an augmented strength of 
Whig votes in Congress, he will accomplish his purpose. He will surely 
have the Senate, and with the patronage of the government, with every 
interest which he can bring to bear, co-operating with every interest which 
the South can bring to bear, he will establish the compromise line. We 
cry safety, before we are out of the woods, if we feel that the danger, re- 
specting the territories, is over. 

Gentlemen, I came here to confer with you as friends and countrymen, 
to speak my own mind and hear yours; but if we all should speak, and 
occupy as much time as I have, we should make a late meeting. I shall 
detain you no longer. 

I have been long in public life, longer, far longer, than I shall remain 
there. I have had some participation for more than thirty years in the 
councils of the nation ; I profess to feel a strong attachment to the liberty 
of the United States, to the constitution and free institutions of this coun- 
try, to the honor, and I may say the glory, of my native land. 

I feel every injury inflicted upon it, almost as a personal injury. I blush 
for every fault which 1 think I see committed in. its public councils, as if 
they were faults or mistakes of my own. 

I know that at this moment, there is no object upon earth so much 
attracting the gaze of the intelligent and civilized nations of the earth as 
this great Republic. All men look at us, all men examine our course, 
all good men are anxious for a favorable result to this great experiment of 
Republican liberty. 

We are on a hill and cannot be hid. We cannot withdraw ourselves 
either from the commendation or the reproaches of the civilized world. 
They see us as that star of empire which half a century ago was repre- 
sented to be making its way westward. I wish they may see it as a mild, 
placid, though brilliant orb, making its way, athwart the whole heavens, 
to the enlio-htening and cheering of mankind : and not a meteor of fire and 
blood, terrifying the nations. 



MR. WEBSTER^S SPEECH 



OREGON BILL, 

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, SATUR- 
DAY EVENING, AUG. 12, 1848. 



The question being on the motion by Mr. Benton, that the Senate re- 
cede from its amendments, to which the House had refused to agree : 

Mr. Webster rose and said : I am very little inclined to prolontr this 
debate, and I hope I am utterly disinclined to bring into it any new 
warmth or excitement. I wish to say a few words, however, first upon 
the question as it is presented to us, as a parliamentary question ; and 
secondly, upon the general political question involved in the debate. 

As a question of parliamentary proceeding, I understand the case to be 
this: The House of Representatives sent us a bill for the establishment of 
a 1 erritorial Government in Oregon; and no motion has been made in the 
Senate to strike out any part of that bill. The bill purporting to respect 
Oregon, simply and alone, has not been the subject of any o1)jection in 
this branch of the legislature. The Senate has proposed no important 
amendment to this bill, affecting Oregon itself; and the honorable member 
from Missouri (Mr. Benton) was right, precisely right, when he said that 
the amendment now under consideration had no relation to Ore<Ton. That 
is perfectly true ; and therefore the amendment which the Senate has 
adopted and the House has disagreed to, has no connection with the im- 
mediate subject before it. The truth is, that it is an amendment by which 
the Senate wish to have now, a public, legal declaration, not respectina 
Oregon but respecting the newly acquired territories of California and 
New Mexico. It wishes now to make a line of Slavery, which shall in- 
clude those new Territories. The amendment says that the line of the 
" Missouri compromise " shall be the line to the Pacific ; and then goes 
on to say, in the language of the bill as it now stands, that the Ordinance 
of 87 shall be applicable to Oregon ; and therefore I say that the amend- 
ment proposed is foreign to the immediate object of the bill. It does 
nothing to modify, restrain or affect, in any way, the government which 
we propose to establish over Oregon, or the condition or character of that 
government or of the people under it. In a parliamentary view, this is 
the state of the case. 

Now, Sir, this amendment has been attached to this bill by a strong ma- 
jority of the Senate. That majority had the right, as it had the power, 



19 

to pass it. The House disagreed to that amendment. Well, if the ma- 
jority of the Senate, who attached it to the bill, are of opinion that 
a conference with the House will lead to some adjustment of the question, 
by which this amendment, or something equivalent to it, may be adopted by 
the House, it is very proper for them to urge a conference. It is very 
fair, quite parliamentary, and there is not a word to be said against it. 
But my position is that of one who voted against the amendment, who 
thinks that it ought not to be attached to this bill, and therefore I natu- 
rally vote for the motion to get rid of it, that is, " to recede." 

So much for the parliamentary question. Now, there are two or three 
political questions arising in this case, which I wish to state dispassion- 
ately : not to argue, but to state. 

The honorable member from Georgia, (Mr. Berrien) for whom I have 
great respect, and with whom it is my delight to cultivate personal friend- 
ship, has stated, with great propriety, the importance of this question. 
He has said, that it is a question interesting to the South and to the 
North, and one which may very well, also, attract the attention of man- 
kind. He has not stated all this too strongly. It is such a question. With- 
out doubt, it is a question which may well attract the attention of mankind. 
On the subjects involved in this debate, the whole world is not now 
asleep. It is wide awake; and 1 agree with the honorable member, that, 
if what is now proposed to be done by us who resist this amendment, is, 
as he supposes, unjust and injurious to any portion of this community or 
against its constitutional rights, that injustice should be presented to the 
civilized world, and we, who concur in the proceeding, ought to submit 
ourselves to its rebuke. I am glad that the honorable gentleman pro- 
poses to refer this question to the great tribunal of Modern Civilization, 
as well as the great tribunal of the American People. It is proper. It 
is a question of magnitude enough, of interest enough, to all the civilized 
nations of the earth, to call from those who support the one side or the 
other a statement of the grounds upon which they act. 

Now, I propose to state, as briefly as I can, the grounds upon which I 
proceed, historical and constitutional ; and will endeavor to use as few 
words as possible, so that I may relieve the Senate from hearing me at 
the earliest possible moment. 

In the first place, to view the matter historically : this Constitution, 
founded in 1 787, and the Government under it, organized in 1T89, does 
recognize the existence of Slavery in certain States, then existing in the 
Union; and a particular description of Slavery. I hope that what I am 
about to say may be received, without any supposition that I intend the 
slightest disrespect. But this particular description of Slavery does not, I 
believe, now exist in Europe, nor in any other civilized portions of the 
habitable globe. It is not a Predial Slavery. It is not analogous to the 
case of the Predial Slaves, or Slaves ghbcE adscripti of Russia, or Hun- 
gary, or other States. It is a peculiar system of personal Slavery, by which 
the person who is called a Slave is transferrable as a chattel, from hand to 
hand. I speak of this as a fact. And that is the fact ; and I will say 
farther, perhaps other gentlemen may remember the instances, that al- 
though Slavery, as a system of servitude attached to the earth, exists in 
various countries of Europe, I am not at the present moment aware of 
any place on the globe, in which this property of man in a human being 
as a Slave, transferable as a chattel, exists except in America. Now, that 
it existed in the form, in which it still exists, in certain Slates, at the for- 
mation of this Constitution, and the framers of that instrument, and those 



20 

who adopted it, agreed that, as far as it existed, it should not be disturbed, 
or interfered with by the new General Government, there is no doubt. 

The Constitution of the United States recognizes it as an existing fact, 
an existing relation between the inhabitants of the Southern States. I 
do not call it an " institution," because that term is not applicable to it ; 
for that seems to imply a voluntary establishment. I have been here so 
long that when I first came here it was a matter of reproach to England, 
the mother country, that slavery had been entailed upon the colonies by 
her, against their consent, and that which is now considered a cherished 
•' institution," was then regarded as, I will not say an entailed evil, but an 
entailment on the colonies by the policy of the mother country against 
their wishes. At any rate, it stands upon the Constitution. The Consti- 
tution was adopted in 1788, and went into operation in 1789. When it 
was adopted, the state of the country was this : slavery existed in the 
Southern States; there was a very large extent of unoccupied territory, 
the whole Northwest, which, it was understood, was destined to be formed 
into States; and it was then determined that no slavery should exist in this 
territory. I gather now, as a matter of inference from the history of the 
time, and the history of the debates, that the prevailing motives with the 
North for agreeing to this recognition of the existence of Slavery in the 
Southern States, and giving a representation to those States, founded in 
part upon their slaves, was rested on the supposition that no acquisition of 
territory would be made to forin new States on the Southern frontier of 
this country, either by cession or conquest. It is plain, that taking the 
history of the times together, the reason why the slave representation was 
allowed, was that since the Northwest Territory was destined by the or- 
dinance to be free, and since nobody looked to any acquisition by con- 
quest or cession for the creation of slave States at the South, there was an 
insisting on the part of the South to suffer slavery where it did exist, and 
to be represented according to the principles and provisions of the Con- 
stitution, inasmuch as it was limited by these two considerations ; first, 
that there was to be no slavery in the Territories; and second, that there 
was not the least anticipation of the acquisition of any new territory. 
And now, sir, I am one who, understanding that to be the purpose of the 
Constitution, mean to abide by it. 

There is another principle, equally clear, by which I mean to abide; and 
that is, that in the Convention, and in tiie first Congress, when appealed 
to on the subject by petitions, and all along in the history of this govern- 
ment, it was and has been a conceded point, that Slavery, in the States in 
which it did exist, was a matter of State regulation exclusively, and that 
Congress had not the least power over it, or right to interfere with it. 
Therefore, 1 say that all agitations and attempts to disturb the relations 
between master and slave, by persons not living in the slave States, are 
unconstitutional in their spirit, and are, in my opinion, productive of 
nothing but evil and mischief. I countenance none of them. The man- 
ner in which the governments of those States, where slavery exists, are to 
regulate it, is for their own consideration, under their responsibility to 
their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity and justice, 
and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of 
humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it, nor right 
to interfere witli it. They have never received any encouragement from me, 
and they never will. In my opinion they have done nothing but to delay 
and defeat their own professed objects. I have now stated, as I understand 
it, the state of things upon the adoption of the Constitution of the United 



J 



21 

States. What has happened since? Sir, it has happened that, above and 
beyond all contemplation or expectation of the original framers of the Con- 
stitution, or the People who adopted it, foreign territory has been acquired 
by cession, first from France, and then from Spain, on our Southern 
frontier. And what has been the result of that? Five slaveholding 
States have been created and added to the Union, bringing ten Senators 
into this body, (I include Texas, which I consider in the light of a foreign 
acquisition also,) and up to this hour in which I address you, not one free 
State has been admitted to the Union from all this acquired territory, not 
one ! 

Mr. Berrien (in his seat) — Yes, Iowa. 

Mil. Webster. — Iowa is not yet in the Union. Her Senators are not 
here. When she comes in there will be one to five, one free State to five 
slave, formed out of new territories. Now, it seems strange to me that 
there should be any complaint of injustice exercised by the North 
toward the South. Northern votes have been necessary, they have been 
ready, and they have been rendered to aid the formation of these five new 
slaveholding States. These are facts ; and as the gentleman from Georgia 
has very properly put it as a case in which we are to present ourselves 
before the world for its judgment, let us now see how we stand. I do 
not represent the North. I state my own case ; and present the matter 
in that light, in which I am willing, as an individual member of Congress, 
to be judged by civilized humanity. I say, then, that according to true 
history, the slaveholding interest in this country has not been a disfavored 
interest ; it has not been disfavored by the North. The North has con- 
curred to bring in these five slaveholding States out of newly acquired 
territory, which acquisitions were never at all in the contemplation of the 
Convention which formed the Constitution, or of the people when they 
agreed that there should be a representation of three fifths of the slaves 
in the then existing States. 

Mr. President, what is the result of this? We stand here now, at least 
I do, for one, to say, that considering that there have been already five new 
slaveholding States formed out of newly acquired territory, and one only, 
at most, non-slaveholding State, I do not feel that I am called on to go 
farther; I do not feel the obligation to yield more. But our friends of the 
South say. You deprive us of all our riglits. We have fought for this 
territory, and you deny us participation in it. Let us consider this 
question as it really is ; and since the honorable gentlemen from Georgia 
proposes to leave the case to the enlightened and impartial judgment of 
mankind, and as I agree with him that it is a case proper to be considered 
by the enlightened part of mankind, let us consider how the matter, in truth, 
stands. Gentlemen who advocate the case which my honorable friend from 
Georgia, with so much ability, sustains, declare, that we invade their rights, 
that we deprive them of a participation in the enjoyment of territories 
acquired by the common services and common exertions of all. Is this 
true? How deprived? Of what do we deprive them? Why, they say 
that we deprive them of the privilege of carrying their slaves, as slaves, 
into the new territories. Well, sir, what is the amount of that ? They 
say that in this way we deprive them of the opportunity of going into 
this acquired territory with their property. Their " property ?" What do 
they mean by "property?" We certainly do not deprive them of the priv- 
ilege of going into these newly acquired territories with all that, in the 
general estimate of human society, in the general, and common, and uni- 
versal understanding of mankind, is esteemed property. Not at all. The 



22 

truth is just this : They have, in their own States, peculiar laws, which 
create property in persons. 'J'liey have a system of local legislation on 
which slavery rests ; while everybody agrees that it is against natural law, 
or at least against the common understanding which pievails among men 
as to what is natural law. 

I am not going into metaphysics, for therein I should encounter the Hon. 
member from South Carolina, and we should wander in " endless mazes 
lost," until after the time for the adjournment of Congress. The Southern 
States have peculiar laws, and by those laws there is property in slaves. 
This is purely local. The real meaning, then, of Southern gentlemen, in 
making this complaint, is that they cannot go into the territories of the 
United States carrying with them their own peculiar local law, a law 
which creates property in persons. This, according to their own state- 
ment, is all the ground of complaint they have. Now here, I think, gentle- 
men are unjust towards us. How unjust they are, others will judge, gene- 
rations that will come after us will judge. It will not be contended that 
this sort of personal slavery exists by general law. It exists only bv local 
law. I do not mean to deny the validity of that local law where it is 
established; but I say it is, after all, local law. It is nothing more. And 
wherever that local law does not extend, property in persons does not exist. 
Well, sir, what is now the demand on the part of our Southern friends? 
They say, " We will carry our local laws with us wherever we go. We 
insist that Congress does us injustice unless it establishes in the territory 
in which we wish to go, our own local law." This demand I, for one, 
resist, and shall resist. It goes upon the idea that there is an inequality, 
unless persons under this local law, and holding property by authority of 
that law, can go into new territory and there establish that local law, to the 
exclusion of the general law. Mr, President, it was a maxim of the civil 
law, that between slavery and freedom, freedom should always be pre- 
sumed, and slavery must always be proved. If any question arose as to 
the status of an individual in Rome, he was presumed to be free until he 
was proved to be a slave. Because slavery is an exception to the general 
rule. So, I suppose, is the general law of mankind. An individual is to 
be presumed to be free, untU a law can be produced which creates owner- 
shi,p in his person. I do not dispute the force and validity of the local law, 
as I have already said; but, I say, it is a matter to be proved ; and, there- 
fore, if individuals go into any part of the earth, it is to be proved that 
they are not freemen, or else the presumption is that they are. 

Now, our friends seem to think that an inequality arises from restraining 
them from going into the territories, unless there be a law provided which 
shall protect their ownership in persons. The assertion is, that we create 
an inequality. Is there nothing to be said on the other side, in relation to 
inequality ? Sir, from the date of this Constitution, and in the councils 
that formed and established this Constitution, and I suppose in all men's 
judgment since, it is received as a settled truth, that slave labor and free 
labor do not exist well together. I have before me a declaration of Mr. 
Mason, in the convention that formed the Constitution, to that effect. Mr. 
Mason, as is well known, was a distinguished member from Virginia. He 
says that the objection to slave labor is, that it puts free white labor in dis- 
repute ; that it makes labor to be regarded as derogatory to the character 
of the free white man, and that the free white man despises to work, to 
use his expression, where slaves are employed. This is a matter of great 
interest to the free States, if it be true, as to a great extent it certainly is, 
that wherever slave labor prevails, free white labor is excluded or discour- 



23 

aged I acrree that slave labor does not necessarily exclude free labor, 
totally There is free white labor in Virginia, Tennessee, and other 
Stales where most of the labor is done by slaves. But it necessarily loses 
somethincr of its respectability, by the side of, and when associated with 
slave labor Wherever labor is mainly performed by slaves, it is regarded 
as desradincT to free men. The free men of the North, therefore, have a 
deep interes°t to keep labor free, exclusively free, in the new territories. 

But sir, let us look farther into this alleged inequality. There is no 
pretence that Southern people may not go into territory which ^l^all be 
subject to the ordinance of 1787. The only restraint is that they shall 
not carry slaves thither and continue that relation. They say this shuts 
them altogether out. AVhy, sir, there can be nothing more inaccurate in 
pointof fact than this statement. I understand that one halt the people 
who settled Illinois, are people, or descendants of people, who came from 
the Southern States. And I suppose that one third of the people of Ohio 
are those, or descendants of those, who emigrated from the South; and 
I venture' to say, that in respect to those two States, they are at this day 
settled by people of Southern origin in as great a proportion as they are 
by people of Northern origin, according to the general numbers and 
proportion of people, Soutli and North. There are as many people from 
the South, in proportion to the whole people of the South, in those States, 
as there are from the North, in proportion to the whole people of the North. 
There is, then, jw exclusiun of Southern people ; there is onlij the errlusion 
of a peculiar local late Neither in principle nor in fact is there any 
inequality. . 

The question now is, whether it is not competent to Congress, in the 
exercise of a fair and just discretion, to say that, considering that there 
have been five slaveholding States added to this Union out of foreign 
acquisitions, and as yet only one free State; under this state of things it is 
nnreasonable or unjust, in the slightest degree, to prevent their further 
increase. That is the question. I see no injustice in it. As to the power 
of Cono-ress, I have nothing to add to what I said the other day. Con- 
gress has full power over the subject. It may establish any such govern- 
ment, and any such laws, in the territories, as in its discretion, it may 
see fit. It is subject, of course to the rules of justice and propriety ; but 
it is under no constitutional restraints. 

I have said that I shall consent to no extension of the area of slavery, 
upon this continent; nor to any increase of slave representation in the 
other House of Congress. 

I have now stated my reasons for my conduct and my vote. We of the 
North have gone, in this respect, already far beyond all that any Southern 
man could have expected, or did expect, at the time of the adoption of 
the Constitution. I repeat the statement of the fact, of the creation of 
five new slave-holding States out of newly acquired territory. We have 
done that which, if those who framed the Constitution had foreseen, they 
never would have agreed to slave representation. We have yielded thus 
far; and we have^now in the House of Representatives twenty persons 
voting upon this very question ; and upon all other questions, who are 
there only in virtue of the representation of slaves. 

Let me conclude, therefore, by remarking that while I am willing to 
present this as showing my own judgment and position, in regard to this 
case, and I beg it to be understood that I am speaking for no other 
than myself, and while I am willing to offer it to the whole world, as 
my own justification, I rest on these propositions •.—First : That when 



24 

this Constitution was adopted, nobody looked for any new acquisition of 
territory to be formed into slaveholding States. Secondhj : That the 
prmciples of the Constitution prohibited, and were intended to prohibit 
and should be construed to prohibit, all interference of the General Gov- 
ernment with slavery as it existed and as it still exists in the States. And 
then, that lookuig to the effect of these new acquisitions, which have in 
this great degree enured to strengthen that interest in the South by the 
addition of these five States, there is nothing unjust, nothing of which 
any honest man can complain, if he is intelligent; and I feel there is 
nothing which the civilized world, if they take notice of so humble a 
person as myself, will reproach me with, when I say, as I said the other 
day, that I had made up my mind, for one, that under no circumstances 
would I consent to the farther extension of the area of slavery in the 
United States, or to the farther increase of Slave Representation in the 
House of Representatives. 



«46 






„„_„..: ^'^< 


















^ . n . **•- 






A> 







'^-♦'-•.<^ .,., 



'^_ 







:- \.^^ 







